7 ms·

Rules for my kids: If you're over 10 years of age you should know what your limits are. I'm always going to be here for advice and help to get yourself back up

• sukilot 6y ago
  That's putting your children in grave danger from all manner of criminals online.
  • elliekelly 6y ago
    Grave danger? Of what? I suspect most of HN had free rein of the internet in their formative years. I’m sure I did a lot of stuff my parents wouldn’t have been thrilled about but I was never in grave danger (or any danger really) and I learned a ton. I’d be far more concerned with the potential lasting damage from a kid’s dumb social media posts than crime.
    • tjr225 6y ago
      You can’t seriously compare the internet of even 10 years ago to the internet of today. You can go to reddit right now and find a video of some right wing whacko shooting someone to death on the front page. That content was available then, sure. It wasn’t blasted right at you though.
      • dagenix 6y ago
        When I was growing up, I had to walk uphill both going to and coming from school.
        • waste_monk 6y ago
          Luxury! When I was a boy we had to crawl for two hours each way through burning hot gravel to get to school, and if you were late they'd whip you with an old electrical cord.
      • ACow_Adonis 6y ago
        Errr, i mean, that's basically what shock sites/links were. It was basically literally blasted right at you and people trolled by getting them to click on it/expose people to it involuntarily whether you were looking for it or not. I'd name several of with their 'canonical names' off the top of my head if i didn't want to get banned...
        • tjr225 6y ago
          I tried to explain this in another comment; you don’t have to go to shock sites to see this anymore. In a main feed on Twitter Instagram or reddit you might see someone getting the pulp beaten out of them.
      • duckMuppet 6y ago
        They're far more likely to be enthralled with democratic groups like antifa or BLM and see how they slap around 70 year old white folks leaving the Republican convention, or how they should surround old ladies having a few drinks on a patio and scream and yell at them until they raise their fist and chant ~~black power~~ err i mean BLM. Or the best one, how anytime a black guy gets shot by the cops it's racism. Yeh you used to see some horrific shit on nowthatsfuckedup.com, but the kids watching almost anything today, even the news are ironically far more ignorant of science and reality. And what's more, their parents are just as dumb. But hey, men can be women now so everyone can pretty much say what they want and it's just as true as 2+2=5 or something.
      • HaloZero 6y ago
        We had Columbine in our era. Maybe it took a bit more effort but newsground.com was an easy site to play some screwed up games. It existed and could easily be found.
      • Barrin92 6y ago
        >You can go to reddit right now and find a video of some right wing whacko shooting someone to death on the front page. when I was growing up it wasn't just right-wing whackos glorying violence, it was Bill Gates himself dressed up in a trench coat advocating to 'clean up the neighbourhood' https://youtu.be/KN0K58EfJSg?t=120 https://youtu.be/KN0K58EfJSg?t=120 You may be underestimating the weirdness of the internet and the culture around it in the 90s, reddit looks harmless compared to what I saw when I was young when kids on the schoolyard were talking about rotten com
        • tjr225 6y ago
          You can’t seriously compare that video to a video of an actual person beating up another person?
      • 3131s 6y ago
        Rotten.com? Ogrish? I was around ten when I saw these and the first thing I encountered was a video of a man's head exploding on contact with a helicopter blade, and then I scrolled down and saw a prostitute that had been chopped up and placed in a suitcase. The world is a remarkably vile place and the internet is just a reflection of it.
        • grugagag 6y ago
          Even now I remember something I saw on ogrish a long long time ago and only when I think about it I feel the trauma comeing back. I wish I never had the curiosity in the first place.
        • tjr225 6y ago
          My point is that you actively had to seek that stuff out. Now you find it on all of the normalized channels; twitter, reddit, facebook, etc.
  • narag 6y ago
    When my kid started playing Minecraft, he told a lot of funny stories about the chat and joking about how people asking for personal details were pedophiles. Ten years old kids are not stupid.
    • sneak 6y ago
      Well, many 30 year old adults are stupid, so it stands to reason that at least some percentage of 10 year old kids are, too. I’m glad your child is bright and perceptive.
      • narag 6y ago
        Good point. You're right that we trusted him more when we saw that the trust was used wisely.
    • aaomidi 6y ago
      Good job for teaching your kid to keep themselves safe!
      • narag 6y ago
        We taught him the basics. He learnt the details from other kids.
  • toomanybeersies 6y ago
    Only if GP doesn't teach their child about the dangers of strangers online.
• senectus1 6y ago
  hmmm not my 10yr old. not my 12 yr old at 10. I think 12/13 is about the time they start understanding that some limits exist, not just because mom and dad put them in place.
• goldenchrome 6y ago
  Based on the other replies to this perfectly reasonable post, I’d say HN is filled with helicopter parents.
  • Mirioron 6y ago
    I think it's more of an indication that even a place like HN is split on the issue of how much you should restrict your kids. From a societal perspective this seems good, because both strategies get employed.
  • aaomidi 6y ago
    Yeah honestly I'm a little judgemental towards how much these parents think little of their kids. Your kid isn't an idiot. They probably have a much more interesting understanding of the world than you do and you won't always be there to keep them safe. You need to give them the tools to keep themselves safe.
• fsckboy 6y ago
  Children at any age, from baby through adolescence, have developing brains, and obeying rules, testing rules, struggling against rules, and accomodating rules, both from society and your parents, is a critical part of development. Don't try to short circuit it, the implied "wrong way to do it" that you are trying to short cut is how the world works and has worked from hunter gatherer days. I have a lot of experience with this type of stuff from my own upbringing with a number of siblings (very liberal as in too liberal) and to give an example from the real world, I suspect (not claiming I know) that Aaron Swartz was given lots of freedom, and not a lot of stricture, and he wound up an admirable kid but RIP. Again, I don't know that for a fact, but you don't know my siblings so you can't see what happened to them.
  • 3131s 6y ago
    I was raised with a computer in my bedroom and no limits on anything since I can remember. I started watching porn at around 8-9 years old, for example, and far worse stuff within a year or two. I also was allowed a lot of physical freedom which unfortunately led to a felony arrest when I was in my early teens. To be honest I'm not sure what effect this all had on me. What happened to your siblings? After all that and living in ghettos and third-world countries, I do feel maladjusted at this point in my life, but it's the sort of negative emotion that feels righteous -- as in the feeling that society is warped, not me, and I don't want to change even if it destroys me.
    • fsckboy 6y ago
      The question should not be framed as how many people (or children) come out ok after exposure to various forms of pollution, but how many are harmed and can that harm be avoided. Speaking hypothetically to illustrate, if only 5% of children are harmed by porn, that's still balanced against how many that are helped? none? That's a lot of net harm.
• acituan 6y ago
  > If you're over 10 years of age you should know what your limits are. Propositionally knowing things is very different than being able to make the right decisions when the moment comes. A 10 year old neither has the fully developed prefrontal cortex of a 25 old nor the required self knowledge. They are not even in puberty and half of their emotions, desires, drives wouldn't have come online yet. They will depend an active presence of your adult perspective to make sense of themselves and the world. Don't worry, they will still make their own mind anyway. > I won't shame them in any way. I know you mean well, but there are legitimate instances where shame is deserved, and regardless of that, society won't pull punches on using the shame lever legitimately or not. > Nudity isn't inherently sexual and shame is a social construct. You are right, these are called the purity codes of a society, and like you say, they are very context dependent. But social construct or not, falling out of those contexts will have social consequences, e.g. leave your kids prone to rejection, with lessened social agency and more isolation.
  • boneitis 6y ago
    > there are legitimate instances where shame is deserved Can you elaborate?
    • acituan 6y ago
      Legitimate shame is a pro-social emotion against breaking purity codes. For a child this could be around cleanliness (“don’t defecate on anywhere other than allowed places”, “don’t fart while eating”), boundaries (“don’t show your genitals to others”, “don’t touch other people’s genitals”, “don’t spit on other people”) but also more complex social interactions (“don’t steal other people’s stuff”, “don’t punch your friends”, “don’t dominate the playground, let others play”). Note that although shame circuitry is involved in all, it is not in the form we are most familiar with, which is heavy handed ostracism and total abandonment, but as minimal as necessary, because shame is a very powerful emotion as is.
      • boneitis 6y ago
        Hmm. So, on the opposite end from the extremities of ostracism and abandonment, what are some ways that shame can be legitimately utilized in more minimal manner, in your view?
• ponker 6y ago
  A 10 year old isn't even nearly old enough to be able to make accurate judgments about their own limits, or more broadly, their inner selves. There certainly are some 10 years olds who can, and maybe you were one such 10 year old, but it's a terrible recipe in the general case.
  • toadi 6y ago
    Most adults can't either and yes there are some who can....
  • aaomidi 6y ago
    Yeah honestly you're wrong about this and seeing kids as stupid little humans that constantly need protection isn't helpful. You're not always going to be there to keep them safe. Give them the tools and the training to understand dangers on their own.
    • ponker 6y ago
      There's a Pacific Ocean between "they're stupid little humans" and "they can have free roam of the Internet and make their own decisions about content." Look how effectively antivaxxers, flat-earthers, and QAnon have infected the minds of adults, and now imagine the effects on a mind 5x as blank-slate/open to suggestion.
      • aaomidi 6y ago
        Have you thought that maybe if those people were given the tools to distinguish right from wrong they wouldn't have ended up believing that crap? You have really no proof about the relationship of parenting style to conspiracy theory believers.
        • ponker 6y ago
          I mean it's obvious that I can't convince you that a generic 10 year old shouldn't be left to roam the Internet freely, so I'll refrain from trying further.
• searchableguy 6y ago
  I do think you should tighten up a bit before teens depending on your kids. For others, I would really advise you all to not rely on content blocking too much. Content blocking is one of the tools and you need more than one to fight off erroneous side of the internet. Be proactively involved in online activities of your kids. See: https://www.fastcompany.com/90539906/sex-lies-and-video-games-inside-roblox-war-on-porn https://www.fastcompany.com/90539906/sex-lies-and-video-game... Side note: Limiting freedom of your kids is not bad. It's better to shape how they live so they continue with it later. Usually, the problematic parts are where people don't adequately explain or misunderstand the problem.
  • Mirioron 6y ago
    When you were young, did your parents successfully employ content blocking on your (computer) activities?
    • aaomidi 6y ago
      Nope. I was just able to navigate through life with them and felt like I can ask them anything.
    • searchableguy 6y ago
      See bio and nope. Although I employ content blocking myself for trackers, ads, dumb stuff and mainstream media. Due to censorship in India, you would probably know about vpn apps by teens. I would have preferred if my dad blocked what I block today. Point towards the toxic wasteland and block it with an adequate explanation.
• CyberRabbi 6y ago
  There are pedophiles online who specialize in preying on kids that have parents like you
  • viraptor 6y ago
    Ok. They also prey on kids with access to safe social networks, kids accessing games with chat, kids with access to anything that has any kind of communication enabled. "Pedophiles exist" is a cheap response that can be used to bring anyone's idea down. Roblox? Pedophiles. YouTube? Pedophiles. Going out of the house? Pedophiles. What's your proposed solution? We already had the time where we obsessed a lot about "stranger danger" which turns out... isn't that dangerous compared to abusive family members, teachers, and other trusted/familiar people.
    • CyberRabbi 6y ago
      Nah. Telling your kids they are free to do whatever they want online without having to consult you and promoting “sex positivity” to them Is not the same as monitoring their roblox or YouTube usage, and giving them a stark warning. Very bad strawman. Pedophiles online are a real danger and there is no way family members pose a likelier or more severe threat than online pedophiles. Saying otherwise is either ignorant or malicious.
      • viraptor 6y ago
        > Pedophiles online are a real danger and there is no way family members pose a likelier or more severe threat than online pedophiles. Sorry to spoil your day, but we live in a pretty terrible world: https://www.rainn.org/statistics/children-and-teens https://www.rainn.org/statistics/children-and-teens 34% family, 59% familiar people, 7% strangers.
        • CyberRabbi 6y ago
          ...Yes because most normal parents protect their kids from strangers, of the remaining kids who are victims it will be by their family. Is that seriously your rationale for claiming family members are more dangerous? Show me the breakdown of offenders of children whose parents allow them to run free online. Also the world is great
• narag 6y ago
  FYI, this very same approach worked nicely for my kid, that just turned 18.
  • Mirioron 6y ago
    Good that it has worked well so far, but I think it's a bit too early to tell. A lot of choices parents make for their kids echo in the 20s of the kid as well. After that it tends to be more about their choices as they've had enough time without parental influence. After all, one of the arguments for giving your kids more freedom as they're growing up is that it will better prepare them for when they're on their own. You probably won't see that effect by 18 yet.
    • narag 6y ago
      That's too true. So far he seems much more responsible than I was, let's see what happens in college.
  • aaomidi 6y ago
    This is the approach my parents took with me. Worked well :)
• totetsu 6y ago
  Just keep them off reddit 50/50. Kids don't know their limits to being exposed to images of violence. It's no immediately obvious that consuming those kind of images can have long term effects. Kids don't know how to contextualize sexualised representations. It' not immediately obvious that those images are produced to show things in a certain way to fit into a certain market, and don't represent life as it really is. I agree that it's impossible to try and just shield them from everything, it's better to give them the tools to process it themselves. But with the internet being weaponized by anti-social zealots trying to bring on ww3, who purposefully publish in channels used by young people... I wonder what is the value of letting young people lose in all of it..
  • sneak 6y ago
    I was exposed to the unfiltered internet starting at around puberty, and, despite being a huge programmer nerd, I turned out mostly okay. I don’t think ten year olds gibbing opponents with rocket launchers in Quake is quite as harmful as you seem to think.
    • DangitBobby 6y ago
      50/50 is not at all like Quake.
      • sneak 6y ago
        We still had rotten.com and The Stile Project, which were equal/worse to anything on 50/50, WatchPeopleDie, or Motherless. Turns out, gross stuff isn’t actually harmful, despite being repulsive.